A world full of helpers: 4-23-09

The other evening at a musical event benefit for the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council and CRES, I saw a trailer for an upcoming documentary being produced by the Christian Foundation for Children and Aging (CFCA).

It looks fascinating, and the hope is that it will be released later this year, though I'm not quite sure when or where.

You can see the trailer by clicking here. It's called "Zamboanga: Poverty/War/Music," and a Kansas City musician, Barclay Martin (pictured here), has been in the Philippines several times with the documentary producers to create a concert to celebrate the people of the area called Zamboanga, featured in the film, and to work on the music for the film.

Martin and his ensemble played the other night and performed the premier of a three-part suite written especially for the evening. It was commissioned by CRES to recognize the wisdom of the world's various faith traditions.

I had not been very aware of CFCA before I saw the documentary trailer the other evening, but it's an agency I'll be paying closer attention to now. Sometimes it astonishes me how many non-profit groups are out there in the world trying to make a difference. I could write about a different one every day here for years and not get to them all. And yet there's still so much poverty and pain in the world. I guess the right view is to imagine how much worse it would be without CFCA and the countless other agencies trying to make a difference. Do you have a favorite among them?

* * *

TEACHING ABOUT THE BIBLE

Good for a West Virginia school district, which has decided to offer an elective course about the Bible. No, not teaching the Bible or teaching one religion, but teaching about the Bible and why it has been so foundational to the culture. Biblical and religious illiteracy is simply rampant and should be countered with these kinds of classes -- as long as they don't slop over into efforts to evangelize people. The best recent book to help all of us with our religious illiteracy is Stephen Prothero's Religious Illiteracy.

* * *

P.S.: A free event called the Story of the Arts of the Holocaust is coming up at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, in the Student Center of the Metropolitan Community College-Maple Woods. Click here for detailed information. I wish I could be there but at that same time I'm leading a follow-up discussion of the Friday and Saturday talks here by Prof. Amy-Jill Levine at Village Presbyterian Church. Click here for those details.

Comments

[Susan]

What a neat video about Zamboanga, Bill! I haven't been to the Philippines -- but in 1997 I did spend a month in Macau, South China (plus did a little sightseeing across the bay in Hong Kong, since that was where I flew in and out of). I met lots of people from the Philippines who were living and working in Macau, and what a strong sense of community they have! In this economic crisis, I'm impressed with how strong, creative, and flexible these Filippino young people seem to be. And happy. And it seems they are living with crises all the time, and war on their doorstep. It gives me some perspective.

Yesterday Lynne wrote, "For crying out loud Susan is not pulling the term fundamentalist out of thin air. Experts in the field of the psychology of religion use it in much the same way and have found a strong link between fundamentalism and authoritarianism. It is not an insult, it is a simple empirical fact. (The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, chapter 10 and elsewhere)"

Thank you Lynne for that! It's good to know that at least one person thinks I am making some sense.

As for those who see my posts as "endless babbling without content" and "frantic gibberish" -- that is just where you are and that's okay. You are obviously not comfortable having a conversation with someone like me who is still learning, and is continuously coming to a deeper understanding of the meanings of various words.

I feel the definitions that Dolores, Lynne, and others have provided, are good enough as a starting-place for anyone who wants to explore the concepts (whether in their own mind or in a discussion). But for me they are just a starting-place or springboard. I understand that if this were a court of law, and people's lives were hanging in the balance, precision would be essential and expounding on a definition mid-stream would be unacceptable. (Continued)

[Susan]

(Continued) But this is not a court of law -- it's a blog where (I think) people come to comment on spiritual and philosophical issues, and to make sense of how beliefs shape the world, as well as how the world, and different life-experiences, shape beliefs.

I see it as a thought or discussion in process -- or actually as many different thoughts and discussions in process, which sometimes intersect and combine in unique ways. It's ever-emerging, and there's no guarantee what form it will take from one day to the next.

So, yeah, it's a good thing it's not a court of law where our words would have the literal power to destroy a life -- to sentence someone to the electric chair, or to years and years in prison. Our words nevertheless do have power to hurt people. We need to be ever-mindful of this.

But there's no need to get so tied up in not wanting to offend anyone, that we stay locked in a state of tripping over our own tongue, and are too scared to say anything for fear of it being taken wrong.

Sometimes an idea is born, and we're not sure just how it will be received by others. On the one hand it seems too undeveloped to be revealed just yet -- but at the same time it seems so pertinent to the current discussion that we decide to just go ahead and spit it out anyway. We take a chance, because this is more interesting to us than holding back and being cautious. (Continued)

[Susan]

(Continued) And, guess what: I do not comment on every. single. post here, and I am not the least bit offended if everyone here does not pay homage to each and every one of my posts. It's okay, really. The internet's a big place, and if I'm not getting the discussion I want here, I can most likely find it someplace else. If you're reading my posts and all they seem to be saying is "QQUIOXK< POTBV (JL"J"HJ" -- then by all means why not just skip over what is nonsense to you, and focus on the posts you find meaningful?

That's what I do -- not that I've found anyone's post here THAT indecipherable -- but as everyone does, I find some posts that I connect with (or react to) more than others, and those are the ones I respond to. It's really okay if you do the same.

[Will Graham]

Susan, Just Thinking is obviously correct...you are making this up as you go along, even if you call it "learning".

You came on here bashing fundamentalist, repeatedly, but when challenged to say what you meant by that you COULD NOT. You then fell back on your personal experience, but offered us no verification of any of it.

Now you pick up on definitions provided by Dolories and Lynne (from Wikipedia type sources) and claim that these are a "starting place" or "springboard" for your "discussion"! Of course you want to claim that, NOW that it has been made clear that you ARE just making this up as you go along; and THAT approach enables you to change your definitions to fit any situation or argument...that is sheer hypocrisy.

Maybe you should not have come on here smearing people without at least knowing what you are talking about. (It reminds me very much of someone else who used to like to attack believers here, although he used a different approach.)

And you may want people to just skip over your posts, thats understandable since on one level you know you should not be attacking people whose beliefs you can not even explain without fake help from atheists, but if you are going to slander people expect to be answered.

[Just Thinking]

"You are obviously not comfortable having a conversation with someone like me who is still learning, and is continuously coming to a deeper understanding of the meanings of various words." - Susan

No, Susan, I am not comfortable with you bashing various Christians without cause, and refusing to offer justification for anything. If you're going to engage in that kind of thing, then expect to be challenged. Will summed this up quite nicely.

Here's my analysis of your actions. You claim to be a Christian. However, you've made it clear that you do not accept the absolute moral authority of God, but reject "rules" (your words), and thereby reserve the right to choose for yourself what is right and what is wrong. God's Kingdom is not a smorgasbord, Susan. When you reject God's "rules" and decide that you can choose for yourself what is right and what is wrong, then you repeat the original sin of Adam and Eve. You're listening to the serpent who is whispering to you, "No, Susan, God is not going to be offended if you sample just *those* fruit. God didn't mean what He said about that." Your behavior is literally "as old as sin!"

Why do you reject certain "rules" of God? The answer is obvious and explains your actions completely: there are certain "rules" you don't personally like. Which "rules" of God's morality have you decided that you want to be able to break, or that you want others to be able to break? That's the key. Rejecting these "rules" has caused you to also reject those who taught you Christianity, the "fundamentalists" that you bash. So why don't you tell us specifically what "rules" you don't like, Susan. Which "rules" offend you?

[Just Thinking]

Jesus died to bring us forgiveness of sin, Susan. Sin is breaking God's "rules." Jesus did not come to eliminate those "rules," but to make it possible to escape the eternal consequences of those "rules." Everyone can be forgiven if they repent and want to follow God, Susan. You don't need to change the rules for yourself or for anyone else.

[Dolores Lear]

J.T. to Susan.
"Why do you reject certain "rules" of God? The answer is obvious and explains your actions completely: there are certain "rules" you don't personally like. Which "rules" of God's morality have you decided that you want to be able to break, or that you want others to be able to break? That's the key. - Jesus died to bring us forgiveness of sin, Susan. Sin is breaking God's "rules."

That is what I want to Know also, is Why do Christians that Love Jesus, Kill Each Other, their Eco System and Ozone Layer?

Do this have anything, or everything, to do with the Lord God that made Life on Earth, and put the Human Species in Charge?

And with Jesus' example of male Celibacy, made it up into Space with the Lord God?

Why do Christians Teach that the Lord God, in our Human Image, said, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', and Jesus in God's Human Image said, 'Turn the Other Cheek.'

I do not get any answers from Christians on these two statement of their God. When I say I cannot kill to defend anyone, even my family, I am told I am wrong.

But I love the Lord God, our High Tech Ancestors and Jesus, and their Peace/Passive Lifestyle of Equality for All

And wanting more than our Brothers/Sisters, leads to all these Possessive Lifestyles, and Killing Each Other for more.

As Susan Lives her Lifestyle, it makes her question some of the rules she was taught as a Child.

So What is the answer, for all Humans that are searching for the Peace that Passes Understanding, on a Killer Planet?

A Human Peace Lifestyle of Male Celibacy, like Jesus taught, that does not Kill for God, Jesus, Family, Government, or Things?

[Susan]

Today I've been thinking about how clinging to sacred cows can literally kill many discussions, and prevent people from thinking about changing potentially-harmful practices that have become commonplace. For instance, a while back on this blog I was accused of anti-Semitism because of a view I expressed on circumcision, after reading an article on AIDS in Africa that Bill provided the link to. The article said some felt that circumcision would reduce the spread of HIV. And I said that if this is true, HIV-positive males should still have the opportunity to give informed consent, and I was not in favor of routine infant circumcision.

It's interesting that I said nothing about Judaism -- yet another poster brought up "the Jews," as if the fact of infant circumcision being a Judaic ritual, precludes any discussion about an individual's right to bodily-integrity. But I just think people should always be able to exercise their right to decline a potentially-harmful procedure that's not essential to life or well-being.

While I've never heard of a rabbi botching an infant circumcision, I have heard of at least one case where a doctor did. 27 years ago, one of my fellow college-students shared about an article he'd read about a boy baby who was now (or then) being raised as a girl, because the doctors decided this was his only possibility for a normal life after having part of his penis accidentally chopped off (I guess they thought females were really nothing more than castrated males, anyway!).

I heard nothing more about this case until 9 years ago, when I was pregnant with my oldest, and my husband and I watched a documentary about people who are born with intersex conditions. This boy (now a young man) was interviewed, even though he hadn't been born with an intersex condition, because of his experience with gender-reassignment. He'd had a miserable childhood, always knowing there was something different about him. His mother finally told him (and his twin brother) the truth when he was a teenager -- and while his twin brother was outraged, the boy himself actually felt relieved to finally know what was going on with him, and to finally be able to move on with his life as a male. (Continued)

[Susan]

(Continued) One of the saddest things about the boy's gender reassignment, was that if the accident had occurred just a short time later, the technology would have been available for his penis to be completely reconstructed, and he would have retained full sexual and reproductive capacity. AND if his damaged penis had just been left alone, he could still have had this reconstructive surgery when it became available. His testicles had not been damaged during the botched circumcision -- but because complete castration was seen as essential to the success of the gender-reassignment, his ability to reproduce was summarily taken from him when he was a baby.

He was still able to avail himself of the technology that enabled him to have a sexual relationship with his wife, and he adopted her three children, and they all seemed very happy in the documentary. It just saddens me how "sacred cows" were allowed to create such tragedy in this boy's life, and how they are still allowed to keep creating tragedies in the lives of other children who are different sexually. First, the sacred cow of male infant circumcision is highly-revered in many medical circles, and that's how the boy got injured in the first place. Then, the sacred cow of "how will he survive gym class with a penis like that?" led to him being subjected to even worse injuries and abuses, both physical and mental.

Babies born with intersex conditions are sometimes subjected to similar abuses, because of the sacred-cow idea that there are only two distinct sexes, male and female, and anyone who doesn't fit the mold must be defective and need fixing. I am not here condemning any parents who've felt pressured into going along with medical advice -- just saying that I feel this is a discussion that needs to be allowed to happen in our world. And that we need to start subjecting our sacred cows to rigorous scrutiny.

Why do we have to stay locked into this two-gender paradigm, when it's clear that so many are being hurt by it? Not just intersex-people -- but any children who discover that they are sexually-different on the inside?

And I'VE been locked into the two-gender paradigm myself -- so, again, I'm not railing against some enemy "out there." I've been part of the problem myself, so I don't see my attemtps to become part of the solution as attacks on other people. I'm just saying that these kinds of discussions are important, and in our efforts to "conserve" morality and "traditional family values," we really need to objectively-evaluate any sacred cows that may be hindering our ability to recognize if a particular attitude or practice is hurting children and others in our society.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/igm_circ.htm

[Dolores Lear]

J.T.:
"Jesus did not come to eliminate those "rules," but to make it possible to escape the eternal consequences of those "rules." Everyone can be forgiven if they repent and want to follow God, Susan. You don't need to change the rules for yourself or for anyone else.

Me:
What Jesus rules are these that Humans are supposed to keep and not change for themselves?

All the different versions that all Christian denominations, that have been made for the past 2000 years?

What version of the rules do you go by J.T.? The USA Christians, The Right Wing, the Left Wing, the Catholic, Protestant, or all the other Christian Denomination Beliefs?

Did Jesus teach all males should be Celibate? And all in his Passive Lifestyle Movement Members, Share Equally with their Resources?

Who follows the Two Commandments that Jesus taught? Should we follow the Rules that were Changed in the 300s on, to accept Jesus as God, and Trinity God Ceremonies?

How many Divisions and Rule Changes have happened, since the Protestant Movement?

God and Jesus said for Humans not to Kill. Did they mean this for a Lifestyle?

Why do Humans that Love God and Jesus Kill Each Other, their Eco System and Ozone Canopy?

Until you can give some intelligent High Tech Answers to these questions, why keep trying to make Susan defend her changing beliefs, as she experiences her present Lifestyle, from the Way she was taught as a Child?

J.T. are you still with the Beliefs you learned as a Child? Sounds like you are involved, with trying to Change Adult Humans, into the Way You Go in your Lifestyle.

The Right Way, that you accepted, when you were taught as a Child, is What? Or, did you find the Right Way, when you grew up?

[Red Biddy]

Bill reminded us yesterday of the Popes speech to a university in Regensburg, Germany.
Problem here was that he was speaking in German, his native tongue, so the Islam reaction to his comments is due to mainly to taking them out of context and not understanding what on earth he was talking about ! He really had nothing to apologize for and in my opinion should have stuck to his guns.
I've found his remarks very interesting, even though much of his theology is still founded in 15th century Catholicism. He was pointing out that the strong influence of the Greek spirit of Inquiry has had a profound effect on religion and that the word "logos" means both "word" and "reason" "In the beginning was REASON."
He didn't go quite as far as to agree with Immanuel Kant that we should "set thinking aside in order to make room for faith" (which thought I heartily agree with !!) but it was clear that he was trying hard to re-introduce reason back into the faith and have theological students (to whom his comments were addressed) get back in touch with reality.
It's a long speech but worth reading even in translation.

[adam harrison]

Susan, your latest rant on circumcision, the Jews, damaged penises...and why even mention a Rabbi when a doctor did it?...and the "sacred cow" of distinct sexes, (which is a fact of nature, not just made up) is nothing but another STRAW MAN argument to smear more people.

You are a real piece of work; how about examining your own "sacred cow" of "discussion"?

There is no disussion here, it is a lecture by you. If the discussion gets "killed" as you put it, it will be a mercy killing. LOL!

[Red Biddy]

I've given you all a neat DEFINITION OF FUNDAMENTALISM which I wrote to-day but mistakenly posted it on yesterdays blog. Hope it might help.
Dolores, Sorry I didn't respond to your David explanation, couple of days ago - sorry he wasn't a convert to the Noah/Atlantis Society.
Been reading up on some of sources for your views - space travellers colonizing earth, Planet X, cloning, etc...WILD !! There do appear to be other people who believe this stuff so you are not alone !
What struck me was the similarity between other religions and yours based on tablets and interpreted by some prophet or other. Moses had tablets, so did Mohammad, so did Joseph Smith all carrying the supposed word of God.
One thing I do agree with you and that is we are making an awful mess of this planet - so I'm off to recycling before they close.

[Dolores Lear]

Susan:
"Why do we have to stay locked into this two-gender paradigm, when it's clear that so many are being hurt by it? Not just intersex-people -- but any children who discover that they are sexually-different on the inside?"

Me:
All Humans are born Different, With Heterosexual Body Birth. No 'One' Knows what their Genetic and Physical Bodies will be.

Humans are sexually-different on the inside because of our mixed up Genetics, and so many different Environments, for a Child to grow up in.

We are all a result, of who are Parents Genetics are, and the Environment we are born into. And the Religion, or no religion, we are exposed to as a Child.

As I post, in Genesis, God 'Us' made Eve the Female Clone from Adam's Rib, not a Mate.

How our Ancestors, the Lord God in Genesis, Evolved up to their High Tech Colonization and Reproduction on another Planet, is not Known as yet.

But they did make Humans on Earth, in their Equal Male and Female Clone Image by High Tech, not the Heterosexual Body Birth that Adam and Eve used for Defective Children.

Humans today, do have the Religious and Secular Writings and Myths handed down, until we again could translate them, with our High Tech Science today.

Humans do Know High Tech Humans can Colonize Planet, and travel in Spaceships, 'supernaturally'. Natural Humans 100 years ago could not.

Since Humans have the Supernatural God Knowledge for Good, why are we using it for Evil to Kill Each Other, and Pollute our Home Planet with all types of Toxic Pollution, and put Nuclear Bombs on Land and Sea?

How do we Certify and Prove, our Religious Teachings of Love and Peace, with our Literal Killing and Unequal Sharing Actions, on our Home Planet?

So What is the Truth of Eternal Physical Life After Birth for Humans? Religious Faith in Life After Death?

Or, High Tech Science Knowledge Faith, for Eternal Physical Life, After Birth on Planet and in Spaceships?

[Just Thinking]

Susan,

Sometimes judgment is cleverly disguised. For example, suppose someone sees something that they have the impulse to declare as wrong. But they like the person. So then they go out of their way to redefine everything until it looks okay. The impulse to believe that *you* must intervene and declare something 'okay' is *very* judgmental. Ironically, it starts with *another* silent judgment that something was wrong! It may appear that you are being non-judgment in this way, Susan, but you are being *very* judgmental and arrogant when you believe that *you* must make someone else acceptable to God!

As I have mentioned before, one has a right (if not an obligation) to act whenever they see someone victimizing someone else. We also have an obligation to warn of destruction that we see coming. Those are Christian values. But, it is utter arrogance to believe that we must condemn, condone, or excuse the behavior of someone else in order that we may declare them to okay or not okay with God! We do not stand as the defendor or accusor of another before God. Jesus is the defendor, and anyone who arrogantly takes on the role of defendor of another by trying to juggle God's law is someone who wants to *be* Jesus instead of following Jesus.

We are supposed to adjust our own behavior, Susan, through law and conscience. But we are not qualified or authorized to judge others, either good or God. Our judgments about others are IRRELEVANT, good or bad. In fact, neither are our judgments about ourself relevant. As Paul put it, "he that judgeth me is the Lord." Thus Paul commands, "judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes"

Treating others well is our obligation, *without* judging others good or bad.

[Red Biddy]

So, Just Thinking
I guess what you are trying to say is that old chestnut: "Judgement is Mine saith the Lord" !
Fine but let me give you a different scenario.
Moslems all over the world got very upset over the issue of the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad - one with a bomb about to explode in his turban.
In contrast I have a delightfully irreverent postcard from a friend visiting Amsterdam with a depiction of Jesus replete with crown of thorns, smoking a reefer with the greeting "Stoned forever in Amsterdam."
Now, if that had been issued by a Moslem journalist (which it may have been for all I know) do you think any Christians would have bothered to go and blow up a few mosques in retaliation ?
My point:some of God's judgements (depending which version of "God" you believe in are out of proportion to the original crime.

[a.theist]

adamh, jt and Will,

I am not siding with the atheists on atheisim, I am siding with two people (Susan and Red - where did the reference to Lynne come from?) pointing out that you are all three out of line, your name calling serves no contructive purpose, and no where have any of you posted any logical refutation of what Susan posts. No one who has read my previous posts would conclude that I agree with the atheist position.

Can you point out Susan's "rant" on circumsicion??

"Our judgments about others are IRRELEVANT" Right JT. So stop doing it.

If the three of you were really Christians I'd assume you'd try to persuade Susan to see the error of her beliefs. While I shouldn't speak for Susan, I assume your posts have convinced her that fundamentalists are as she believes, and that you three are judgemental, critical, mean spirited and are in no way acting as Christ would act in the situation.

Please note that, before you unload, I did not say that you were not Christians, only that I do not see the love of Jesus in your words.

[a.theist]

JT,

I read your 3:54 post. Did you?

[Just Thinking]

a.theist,

You claim that I have been calling Susan names. What names?

I have accurately described *specific* behaviors, a.theist, but my descriptions were quite accurate, and the words carefully-chosen. But I never labeled Susan with any name. I didn't put her into some category that has an offensive name, and then call her that name, expecting that to sum it all up! So, that's false, a.theist, as are most of your accusations.

Judging is deciding that someone is acceptable or unacceptable to God, a.theist. I don't make such claims against you or Susan or anyone else. It is not judgment to carefully scrutinize Susan's actions to malign Christians, a.theist. Her attacks should be questioned.

"I assume your posts have convinced her that fundamentalists are as she believes." That's a particularly goofy and ill-informed remark, a.theist, because I am *not* a fundamentalist!!! Hahahhaha!!! Apparently neither Susan, nor you, would know a fundamentalist if you saw one. You also use that word without understand it's meaning, which is particularly funny since you claim to be a fundamentalist. And I am the one defending fundamentalists against unwarranted, illogical attacks! That's a hoot, eh, theist? :)

[Will Graham]

A Theist,

I read your 7:54 post. Did you?

[a.theist]

JT

"No, Susan, I am not comfortable with you bashing various Christians without cause,"

You are calling Susan a Christian Basher

"You claim to be a Christian."

You are calling Susan a liar.

"Your behavior is literally 'as old as sin!'"

You are calling Susan a sinner (only to belittle her).

"I assume your posts have convinced her that fundamentalists are as she believes." That's a particularly goofy and ill-informed remark, a.theist, because I am *not* a fundamentalist!

I didn't say you were, but I assume that Susan classifies you that way.

"!! Hahahhaha!!!"

I love the teenagers who use 'Bahahahahh' and 'Hahahaha' and 'LOL'

"Apparently neither Susan, nor you, would know a fundamentalist if you saw one."

Speaking of goofy and ill informed.

"You also use that word without understand it's meaning, which is particularly funny since you claim to be a fundamentalist. And I am the one defending fundamentalists against unwarranted, illogical attacks! That's a hoot, eh, theist? :)"

No, you are not “the one defending fundamentalists against unwarranted, illogical attacks” you are the one being abusive.

Since you are so knowledgeable, perhaps you would share your true definition of 'fundamentalist'.

And are you the person who believes the bible does not condemn homosexuality??

Will,

"A Theist,
I read your 7:54 post. Did you?"

What?

What an original thought – wish I’d thought of it – Oh wait I did.

I was saying that JT violates the points he posted; what are you saying?

I ask again JT, Will and adamh are you reflecting the character of Jesus? Are you good witnesses for the love of Christ?